Joint Compressive Plan Of Action Analysis

There are seven key points in this nuclear deal: Iran has to reduce their centrifuges, reduce their uranium enrichments, they can’t over produce anything nuclear for at least two months, their Fordow Facility has to stop producing uranium for fifteen years, they can keep doing research and development but can only do it with a break of three months, they will have inspection by the U.N., and we have to lift our sanctions that we have on Iran. President Barrack Obama said this deal, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” (Cato Institute 1/3) This applies to the quote by Barrack Obama wanting to make history. He wants to ensure the safety on America by declining the top producing nuclear war-heads country in the world, their production of nukes. President Obama will go into the books by already stopping a future nuclear

An Iranian Opposition group reveals Nuclear plants and refineries. This begins the U.N and individual country sanctions on Iran. Four rounds of sanctions are implemented and no change in foreign or nuclear policy in Iran has occurred. In 2014, President Obama and newly elected Iranian President Rouhani conducted a teleconference. This was the first President-to-President talk between the nations in 30 years. History of Iran: Oil Nationalization. (2001).

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

They commended the parties for finding value and diplomacy and for seeking peaceful political solutions. However strenuous it may seem, that was evident in July, when the parties agreed to extend the period of the negotiations for another four months to give themselves more time to close the underlying gaps. They have continued the talks on P5+1 Iran’s nuclear program. The representatives of those countries are negotiating a comprehensive plan of action that, once implemented, would ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. They seek to finalize such arrangements by 24 November of this year. Hopefully the negotiation goes well. In the meantime, the Council and its Iran Sanctions Committee must ensure the continued implementation of United Nations sanctions. We have been troubled to hear reports of confusion as to whether the sanctions remain in effect during the period of negotiations. Although the P5+1 offered Iran some limited and reversible sanctions relief as part of the joint plan of action, the plan included no changes to United Nations sanctions. The role of the 1737 Committee in support of the P5+1 process is vital to its success. We agree with the Chair that only the Security Council itself can alter the sanctions measures applied by the

On the White House website, a 112 pages’ document called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gives some detailed about the deal with Iran. It says that the deal:

When the deal was signed on July 14, 2015, it successfully achieved the limitation the aforementioned threats, as Iran will have no nuclear weapons and be subject to intense U.N oversight for at least ten years. This oversight, sanctioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), consists of stringent daily facility and centrifuge inspections, with a clause that states “the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). To quote President Barack Obama, the Iranian Deal “is not built on trust; it is built on verification” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). Lifting sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for these allowances is not a difficult decision. A deal that restricts and checks enrichment, and also renders Iran a non nuclear- weapon possessing country is a good deal that allows states around the world to sigh a breath of relief.

Moreover, Iran will be able to access 100 billion dollars of assets that are frozen in overseas banks. However, if Iran violates the JCPOA there is a provision within the contract to implement the sanctions back on Iran. Consequently, the JCPOA international agreement was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 nations. The Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid stated “A nuclear-armed Iran would pose the gravest imaginable threat to Israel. If America walks away from this agreement and loses the support of our allies in the sanctions regime, Iran could have enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb in a matter of months. Iranian leaders have regularly stated that they intend to wipe Israel off the map and I believe those threats should be taken with the utmost seriousness. This agreement is the best way to prevent Iran’s leaders from obtaining the nuclear weapons that would empower them to follow through on their threats to Israel.” (U.S. Democratic Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Statement On The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action.). Therefore, the majority of Democrats support the JCPOA and believe it is a better alternative to peace than using a military preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (Joint Comprehensive Plan of

The White House’s information page clearly states that sanctions will be re-imposed on Iran if they engage in the following: development of ballistic missiles, continued support of terror, the action of de-stabilizing regions (Syria), and converting Iran currency into the US

Ban 's office also issued a positive statement on the meeting, saying the two "discussed Iran 's growing cooperation with the international community on a host of issues, including the nuclear file, as well the role Iran could play

The democrats in the U.S. Senate block a Republican attempt to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, handing President Barack Obama a major victory. Senate Republicans do not have enough votes to end a Democratic filibuster on the resolution of approval. Iran's highest leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says there will be no further negotiations with the U.S. beyond the nuclear deal. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate attempt to stop the nuclear deal by pushing through a resolution rejecting it. In the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, place two-thirds of their installed centrifuges under international supervision, give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permanent access "where necessary, when necessary",

JCPOA stipulated each party commitments and rights. It also defined how to settle differences among parties, if appeared and each part might what to do in case of unilateral violations done by another party. Under JCPOA and Security Council resolution 2231, If Iran does not comply its commitments and these noncompliance verified by IAEA, then snap back sanctions being activated. If US does not comply its

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.